News Release Information

Contacts

Technical information:

Media contact:

PDF

County Employment and Wages in Arizona – Second Quarter 2014

Employment increased in Arizona’s two large counties from June 2013 to June 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2013 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that Maricopa County experienced job growth of 2.2 percent, while employment in Pima County increased 0.5 percent over the year.

Nationally, employment increased 2.0 percent from June 2013 to June 2014 as 305 of the 339 largest U.S. counties gained jobs. Weld, Colo., had the largest percentage increase over the year (8.9 percent). Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease (-1.6 percent).

Among the state’s two large counties, employment was higher in Maricopa County (1,717,100) in June 2014. Together, Arizona’s two large counties accounted for 83.0 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 339 large counties made up 71.8 percent of total U.S. employment. (See table 1.).

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000. In all but one of these smaller counties, average weekly wage levels were below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Average weekly wages in Maricopa County increased 1.2 percent from the second quarter of 2013 and ranked 239th among the 339 largest U.S. counties. Pima County’s 0.5-percent wage growth ranked 285th nationally. (See table 1.) Nationally, 312 large counties registered over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2014. Midland, Texas, ranked first with an increase of 9.0 percent. Douglas, Colo., ranked second with a gain of 8.8 percent, followed by the counties of Hillsborough, N.H. (7.4 percent), Collier, Fla. (6.8 percent), and San Mateo, Calif., (6.6 percent).

Among the 339 largest counties, 22 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Williamson, Texas, had the largest decrease (-2.7 percent). Westchester, N.Y., had the second largest wage decline (-1.6 percent), followed by Lake, Ind. (-1.4 percent) and Bibb, Ga (-1.3 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in both of Arizona’s two large counties were below the national average of $940 per week. Maricopa County’s $931 average weekly wage placed near the top third among the 339 large U.S. counties, ranking 115th. At $815 per week, Pima County’s average weekly wage placed 233rd. Nationally, weekly wages were higher than average in 109 of the 339 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $1,886. San Mateo, Calif. was second at $1,740, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,732) and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,593).

Two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (230) reported average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2014. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($548), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($585) and Hidalgo ($608). Wages in these lowest-ranked counties were less than one-third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,886).

Average weekly wages in Arizona’s smaller counties

Of the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000, only Greenlee ($1,225) had an average wage above the national average of $940. La Paz County reported the lowest wage in the state with an average of $626 in the second quarter of 2014. (See table 2.)

When all 15 counties in Arizona were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Four counties reported average weekly wages of $699 or less, five had wages from $700 to $799, four reported wages from $800 to $899, and two had wages of $900 or more. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other information

QCEW data for states have been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit www.bls.gov/cew.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2013 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2014, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2014 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2013 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn13.htm. The 2014 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2015.

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2014 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, March 19, 2015.

Technical Note

Average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The 9.4 million employer reports cover 137.8 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels of those covered by UI programs. The result is then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter. It is to be noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work. Thus, wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for reasons other than changes in the average wage level. Data for all states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the nation are available on the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons–some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ from data released by the individual states as well as from the data presented on the BLS Web site. These potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over time. On the other hand, differences between data in this release and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments made to improve over-the-year comparisons. Specifically, these adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification. Adjusting for these administrative changes allows users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) over a 12-month period. Currently, adjusted data are available only from BLS press releases.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the 2 largest counties in Arizona, second quarter 2014

Footnotes:(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.(2) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications.(3) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.(4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Footnotes:(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.(2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.(3) Data not included in the national ranking.

News Release Information

Contacts

Technical information:

Media contact:

PDF

County Employment and Wages in Arizona – Second Quarter 2014

Employment increased in Arizona’s two large counties from June 2013 to June 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2013 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that Maricopa County experienced job growth of 2.2 percent, while employment in Pima County increased 0.5 percent over the year.

Nationally, employment increased 2.0 percent from June 2013 to June 2014 as 305 of the 339 largest U.S. counties gained jobs. Weld, Colo., had the largest percentage increase over the year (8.9 percent). Atlantic, N.J., had the largest over-the-year decrease (-1.6 percent).

Among the state’s two large counties, employment was higher in Maricopa County (1,717,100) in June 2014. Together, Arizona’s two large counties accounted for 83.0 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 339 large counties made up 71.8 percent of total U.S. employment. (See table 1.).

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000. In all but one of these smaller counties, average weekly wage levels were below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Average weekly wages in Maricopa County increased 1.2 percent from the second quarter of 2013 and ranked 239th among the 339 largest U.S. counties. Pima County’s 0.5-percent wage growth ranked 285th nationally. (See table 1.) Nationally, 312 large counties registered over-the-year increases in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2014. Midland, Texas, ranked first with an increase of 9.0 percent. Douglas, Colo., ranked second with a gain of 8.8 percent, followed by the counties of Hillsborough, N.H. (7.4 percent), Collier, Fla. (6.8 percent), and San Mateo, Calif., (6.6 percent).

Among the 339 largest counties, 22 experienced over-the-year decreases in average weekly wages. Williamson, Texas, had the largest decrease (-2.7 percent). Westchester, N.Y., had the second largest wage decline (-1.6 percent), followed by Lake, Ind. (-1.4 percent) and Bibb, Ga (-1.3 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Average weekly wages in both of Arizona’s two large counties were below the national average of $940 per week. Maricopa County’s $931 average weekly wage placed near the top third among the 339 large U.S. counties, ranking 115th. At $815 per week, Pima County’s average weekly wage placed 233rd. Nationally, weekly wages were higher than average in 109 of the 339 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $1,886. San Mateo, Calif. was second at $1,740, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,732) and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,593).

Two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (230) reported average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2014. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($548), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($585) and Hidalgo ($608). Wages in these lowest-ranked counties were less than one-third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,886).

Average weekly wages in Arizona’s smaller counties

Of the 13 counties in Arizona with employment below 75,000, only Greenlee ($1,225) had an average wage above the national average of $940. La Paz County reported the lowest wage in the state with an average of $626 in the second quarter of 2014. (See table 2.)

When all 15 counties in Arizona were considered, all but 1 had wages below the national average. Four counties reported average weekly wages of $699 or less, five had wages from $700 to $799, four reported wages from $800 to $899, and two had wages of $900 or more. (See chart 1.)

Additional statistics and other information

QCEW data for states have been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit www.bls.gov/cew.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2013 edition of this publication, which was published in September 2014, contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2014 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2013 are now available online at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn13.htm. The 2014 edition of Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online will be available in September 2015.

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2014 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, March 19, 2015.

Technical Note

Average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The 9.4 million employer reports cover 137.8 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels of those covered by UI programs. The result is then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter. It is to be noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work. Thus, wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for reasons other than changes in the average wage level. Data for all states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the nation are available on the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons–some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ from data released by the individual states as well as from the data presented on the BLS Web site. These potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over time. On the other hand, differences between data in this release and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments made to improve over-the-year comparisons. Specifically, these adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification. Adjusting for these administrative changes allows users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) over a 12-month period. Currently, adjusted data are available only from BLS press releases.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the 2 largest counties in Arizona, second quarter 2014

Footnotes:(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.(2) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications.(3) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.(4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Footnotes:(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.(2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.(3) Data not included in the national ranking.